Thank you, Garth. It's a pleasure to be with all of you today.
I have a couple of comments along those lines. On the topic of the study at hand about targeted infrastructure investments and the difference between a direct allocation like the federal gas tax fund—now the community-building fund—versus application-based programs, it's been FCM's view that there is a role for both. However, for the reasons given by both Mr. Frizzell and Mr. Gamble earlier, there's a lot of strength in the predictability that comes with a direct allocation, like the gas tax fund, which is why FCM is consistently held up as an ideal model for delivering infrastructure funding.
Regarding the $15-billion commitment on transit funding, I have a couple of points as to why FCM feels it's so important. First is the predictability—consistent with the mechanism of the gas tax fund—that the proposed permanent transit fund will bring. This is starting in 2026, a commitment to an annual investment of at least $3 billion per year.
Transit planning, as you all know from the experience in your regions, takes many years, especially the big LRT subway projects. These are 10-year planning horizons. Having that long-term predictability is key. The FCM is very pleased to see that commitment.
In the near term, as part of the economic recovery, FCM is very pleased to see the specific allocations for rural transit as well as active transportation, and investments to transition toward low- and zero-emission transit vehicles.
I wanted to outline those elements of that $15-billion transit commitment.